Saturday, 17 March 2012

The “Live-to-Eat” or “Eat-to-Live” Question

In today’s world, how quickly can the majority of people go
from sufficient wealth to dependence on charity?

Here is a scenario to consider: A person
losses his or her home because of loss of job; and this person is unable to get
a job because he or she no longer has a fixed address.

Do you eat to live or live to eat? What comes to your mind as you think about this question? Do you consider the types of foods that may be associated (e.g. we eat nutritious foods to live; but we live to eat non-nutritious or snack foods) or do we? What comes to mind about the
socio-economic associations, the implied social responsibilities, and our moral
obligation with respect to this question?

Do you clearly see the socio-economic associations (e.g. those who are wealthy mostly live to eat but the less privileged eat to live)?

What about globally, do people in wealthy countries mostly live to eat; whereas people in poorer countries mostly eat to live?

As a food producer, have you considered if the product you supply is for those who eat to live, those who live to eat, or both?

As a food manufacturer, is your product for those who eat to live, those who live to eat, or both?

As a food outlet owner (restaurant canteen, retailer) do you consider if the types of food you sell or serve are for those who eat to live, those who live to eat, or both?

In your operation or opinion, which of these ranks the highest as an area needing help from an external party?

As a consumer or user of food, pharmaceuticals, medical devices or cosmetics, how would you rank safety, availability and price in order of importance from left (most important) to right (least important)?